Here's why monopolies are thriving...

 Antitrust laws in the US are not breaking up many monopolies currently due to several complex challenges including the evolving legal standards for proving harm, technological innovation, political and economic pressures, and resource constraints faced by enforcement agencies. Proving consumer harm, which is a key element for successful antitrust enforcement today, has become difficult because monopolies like Google and Meta often harm competitors more than directly hurting consumers through prices. Additionally, legal precedents and judicial decisions limit how antitrust laws can be applied, especially against tech giants whose business models involve network effects and data dominance that traditional antitrust frameworks did not anticipate.

Political lobbying and the influence of large corporations also hinder vigorous enforcement. The digital economy's rapid innovation requires updated legal interpretations and sufficient agency resources to address the unique challenges posed. Historical examples show that breaking up monopolies has not always produced effective competition or consumer benefits, leading regulators to consider new remedies beyond divestitures. Moreover, globalization complicates enforcement as companies operate across borders, requiring international cooperation.

In summary, the combination of these legal, economic, political, and practical factors has made antitrust enforcement less effective at breaking up monopolies, especially in high-tech sectors, despite heightened scrutiny and efforts under recent administrations.culawreview+7

1. https://www.culawreview.org/journal/the-rise-and-fall-of-antitrust-why-antitrust-revival-is-a-legal-necessity
2. https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/why-breakups-arent-the-best-way-to-curb-tech-monopolies/
3. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/if-it-aint-broke-dont-break-it-up/
4. https://www.law.georgetown.edu/denny-center/blog/antitrust-law/
5. https://som.yale.edu/centers/thurman-arnold-project-at-yale/modern-antitrust-enforcement
6. https://www.standrewslawreview.com/post/united-states-v-monopoly-the-rise-fall-and-revival-of-antitrust-law
7. https://www.promarket.org/2024/02/05/the-surprising-culprit-behind-declining-us-antitrust-enforcement/
8. https://www.justice.gov/archives/atr/speech/international-cooperation-and-future-us-antitrust-enforcement
9. https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1bka6yd/cmv_monopolyantitrust_laws_are_outdatedobsolete/
10. https://rooseveltinstitute.org/blog/america-has-a-monopoly-problem-and-its-huge/
11. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/speeches/challenges-new-economy-issues-intersection-antitrust-intellectual-property
12. https://www.chicagobooth.edu/review/do-antitrust-efforts-encourage-monopoly
13. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law
14. https://www.ntu.org/foundation/detail/growing-challenges-for-us-competition-policy-in-2024
15. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/using-antitrust-law-address-market-power-platform-monopolies/
16. https://today.yougov.com/economy/articles/47798-most-americans-oppose-monopolies-and-support-antitrust-laws
17. https://hls.harvard.edu/today/antitrust-issues/
18. https://www.justice.gov/archives/atr/monopoly-power-and-market-power-antitrust-law
19. https://www.cato.org/blog/case-against-antitrust
20. https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/uvicecon103/chapter/why-monopolies-persist/

People can get laws passed to better protect consumers from monopolistic and anti-competitive practices by pursuing several strategic actions that influence legislation and regulatory frameworks:

1. Advocacy and Public Pressure: Consumer advocacy groups, activists, and the general public must raise awareness about the harms caused by monopolies, mobilizing public opinion to demand stricter laws and enforcement. This can include organizing campaigns, media engagement, and pushing elected representatives to act on consumer protection issues.globallawexperts+1

2. Electing Representatives Committed to Reform: Voters can support candidates who prioritize updated antitrust regulations and consumer protections in Congress and state legislatures. Legislators sympathetic to curbing monopoly power can introduce and champion reform bills targeting practices like exclusivity, market dominance abuse, and lack of platform interoperability.congress+1

3. Supporting Modernized Legislation and Agency Empowerment: Laws need updating beyond traditional antitrust acts (like the Sherman Act) to address modern digital marketplace dynamics. Support for bills that empower the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Department of Justice (DOJ), and state attorneys general with stronger investigative and enforcement tools is crucial. This includes legislation that addresses self-preferencing, data access, and transparency requirements for dominant platforms.culawreview+3

4. Litigation and Legal Challenges: States and advocacy groups filing lawsuits against monopolistic companies help push the boundaries of existing laws and can lead courts to create new legal standards. Successful cases create precedents incentivizing stricter oversight and regulatory reforms.ebsco+1

5. International Cooperation and Standards: Aligning U.S. consumer protection and antitrust laws with international efforts (like the EU’s aggressive antitrust actions) can create a global environment less hospitable to monopolistic abuses and encourage bilateral or multilateral enforcement cooperation.justice+1

In essence, consumers protect themselves by mobilizing political will and legal reforms that modernize antitrust laws and strengthen regulatory agencies, alongside active public engagement and judicial pressure on monopolies. This multi-pronged approach is necessary because traditional antitrust laws alone have struggled to keep pace with the fast-evolving digital economy.promarket+2

1. https://globallawexperts.com/tech-giants-and-global-antitrust-laws/
2. https://www.culawreview.org/current-events-2/decoding-big-tech-the-efficacy-of-the-sherman-antitrust-act
3. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/law/big-tech-and-antitrust-law-overview
4. https://www.cato.org/cato-handbook-policymakers/cato-handbook-policymakers-9th-edition-2022/big-tech-antitrust
5. https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/antitrust-laws
6. https://www.justice.gov/atr/antitrust-laws-and-you
7. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R46875
8. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/speeches/antitrust-enforcement-high-technology-markets
9. https://www.promarket.org/2024/08/12/antitrust-alone-cannot-solve-the-big-tech-problem/
10. https://www.justice.gov/archives/atr/speech/international-cooperation-and-future-us-antitrust-enforcement

Many tech companies and law enforcement agencies use advanced surveillance technologies to monitor protest movements and activists, often leading to concerns that such monitoring suppresses dissent rather than protects community safety. These technologies include cell-site simulators ("stingrays") that intercept and track cell phone signals, facial recognition systems to identify protesters, data tracking tools that collect location and social media data, drones used for aerial surveillance, and social media monitoring algorithms. This extensive surveillance can chill protest participation as demonstrators fear retaliation or identification, thereby undermining the right to free expression and peaceful assembly. Critics argue that these tools are sometimes used disproportionately against minority populations or those organizing social justice protests, fueling division rather than unity.

In some cases, universities and cities deploy these technologies under the guise of safety, but they can infringe on privacy and constitutional rights. Legal protections around the use of such technologies vary by jurisdiction, and the evolving digital surveillance landscape presents challenges to maintaining democratic freedoms. Activists and civil liberties groups advocate for transparency, limits on surveillance, and stronger legal safeguards to protect protesters from invasive monitoring and retaliation.

Thus, the capacity of tech companies and law enforcement to monitor and potentially influence protests is a serious concern that can deepen societal divisions, suppress legitimate dissent, and hinder efforts to unite people around common causes.theflaw+6

1. https://theflaw.org/articles/suppression-by-surveillance/
2. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/12/high-tech-police-surveillance-protests-and-activism-year-review-2020
3. https://www.pogo.org/analysis/protest-under-a-surveillance-state-microscope
4. https://www.icnl.org/post/analysis/protesting-in-an-age-of-government-surveillance
5. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/05/26/tech-conferences-are-ramping-up-security-to-quell-employee-protests-.html
6. https://www.themarshallproject.org/2024/11/12/protest-surveillance-technologies
7. https://www.wired.com/story/how-to-protest-safely-surveillance-digital-privacy/
8. https://notechforice.com
9. http://privacyinternational.org/examples/tracking-protest-surveillance